George Morris on the SS list

Why yes, thank you for offering!

As a preliminary question, are you affiliated with SafeSport? Can we take your answers to these questions as authoritative statements on how SafeSport works?

Here are my questions:

  1. When does the accused see the evidence, including witness statements, that will be used against him?

  2. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow for any discovery? [The rules clearly state no, but perhaps you will tell us otherwise.] If not, why not?

  3. Does the initial investigation or the arbitration proceeding allow the accused’s attorney to cross-examine any witnesses?

  4. Does the arbitrator have any power to compel witnesses to come and testify (i.e., like a subpoena)? If not, how can the accused get a reluctant witness to testify as to the facts they know–like if the witness says they “don’t want to get involved”?

  5. How many SafeSport sanctions have gone to arbitration, and how many of those have been upheld?

1 Like

Indeed it was.

3 Likes
   Please lighten up. “Accused” means the same thing as “alleged perpetrator”. 
   Before the hearing/trial/arbitration you have the reporter/complainant/alleged victim and the respondent/accused/alleged perpetrator.  Only after the thing is adjudicated, and the respondent found liable do you have a victim and abuser. 
    If you insist that you know for a fact that the reporter is a victim before any investigation or hearing, then you are doing the “guilty until proven innocent” thing that the ISWG people complain about. I’m fine with still presuming GM innocent until he loses the appeal.
2 Likes
Ah ...  Lightbulb goes on. 

 Doesn’t SafeSport Overhaul claim that they want to improve SafeSport but aren’t advocating for any specific case?

 A paid apologist for GM is running SafeSport Overhaul. Easier to understand why zero specific and feasible suggestions for change have come out of the group.
10 Likes

Well, it’s actually Safe Sport Overhul according to the GoFundMe page, or at least it was as of yesterday.

12 Likes

:lol: You’re right! It’s Safe Sport OVERHUL. Vanna, can I buy a vowel?

14 Likes

For $25K?

17 Likes

@Peggy that’s already earmarked for pamphlets, proofreading is another gfm

16 Likes

So the pamphlets don’t come with a proofreader? Dang! What is an “overhul” anyway.

ETA: I looked at the page and unless they make specific coherent statements about what is wrong and how they want to fix it beyond it’s not fair to our friends. It will get no traction. The plane rides to different states to visit members of Congress just shows how people in the industry have no clue how anything works or gets done.

9 Likes

She was pointing out the “alleged victim” part. It is an interesting word choice. People don’t need to lighten up .

16 Likes
   I don’t see a major moral issue with using the term “alleged victim” during the time prior to a ruling of guilty or liable. It goes along with that presumption of innocence thing.  Is using the term “alleged victim” in the time interval prior to a guilty ruling victim bashing now?

  I would never suggest that you, personally, should “lighten up”.
1 Like

I thought as much. Interesting that Phelps Media is only invested in this crusade in a very small manner.

To send out George’s “I am so offended by this terribly unfair banning” email to the unfortunate people who happened to be available because they were on the email list of Phelps Media, didn’t take much effort or cost.

Having a (former?) member ask for donations to pursue an ill advised and scatterbrained attempt to “reform” Safe Sport, when their only problem with it so far is that a few horseman have been banned for molesting students, is not likely to influence politicians to join their cause. Thus the “crowdfunding”.

I doubt any business entity would spend money on that. They’ll leave it to others who can’t see which way the wind blows when it comes to child molesters.

7 Likes

I mean, what do they think is going to happen?

They fly out to talk to congress members.

Congress members are like ??? Isn’t this to help prevent child molesters from molesting children in sports?

DUE PROCESS!!! LACK OF TRANSPARENCY!!!

*Congress members may decide to look into it because reasons

“So SS, these people are upset about this process. What is this all about?”

“We have absolute proof that their “GOD” has committed these crimes, we did a very long investigation and decided that after all of the evidence that was presented to us from both sides because we do what we are supposed to do, that we banned him. Apparently they are pissed off about it. Here, read his book.”

Congress members: …

25 Likes

So, Ms Khobstetter, I can’t help but notice the difference in how you present yourself to the people on your Safe Sport “Overhaul” page, and how you present yourself here. You are obviously capable of writing properly, so why the hysterical writing on your fundraising page?

I suggest that you tone down the !!! and ODD CAPITALIZATIONS, use proper sentence structure and punctuation, and make some factual arguments that you have with Safe Sport, if you are really preparing materials to give to U.S. Representatives.

Why the marked difference in your manner of writing, I can only imagine. :cool:

11 Likes

The moral issue, as I read it, is that it is usually the victim that does the “self-alleging” here. And arguing that someone might be wrong about what happened to themselves is incredibly invalidating. It is also an unfortunate strategy that has long been part of the defense’s tool box-- “she said ‘no’, but she meant ‘yes’”-- etc. Can we just stop doing that with victims of sex crimes, please? The strategy is no longer morally acceptable.

20 Likes

A quick question for those of you who think you can take the political temperature to things right now:

Do you think there is an appetite at this moment for Congress to get on board with making sure that those investigated and banned by an organization like SafeSport get some better process? I just don’t know how much pay-off there is to standing on the opposite side of an organization founded to stop the likes of Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky.

What do you all think?

12 Likes

Maybe the ISWG people can go to Congress & picket with the ISWL people (I stand with Larry Nassar) That would catch people’s attention.

15 Likes

No way. Even if it caught on with a few members of Congress at an extreme end of the political spectrum… Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, and McConnell the Senate Majority Leader. Both have been around long enough to know what political suicide looks like when they see it.

As for the Commander in Chief… he is nothing if not capricious. However… he did sign this into law. So it’s unlikely it’s going to get amended during the 2020 cycle.

It seems far more likely it will be challenged via the courts. On narrow grounds. And that is a long, long process. Could take a few years for a challenge to make its way through the process. GM is in his 80’s… his specific case is what it is, and I am still of the opinion that it is NOT the best case to use to try and overturn Safe Sport. And regardless of wealthy benefactors (I think that issue is a bit overblown with him)… it’s not wise for someone in their 80’s to spend a great deal on a long shot civil suit trying to overturn a law intended to prevent sexual abuse of minors in sport.

I’m not saying that there aren’t some valid points to be made about concerns over the Safe Sport process… but the ISWG people are living in an alternate reality.

9 Likes

WARNING: Long essay ahead.

I think it is interesting that Kathy, one of the few horse professionals who has actually held a job somewhat outside the horse industry, is so vocal against what amounts to a Human Resources Disciplinary
Panel.

SafeSport is not a criminal court – it does not and cannot impinge upon consitutional liberties. Those found in non-compliance with the Code of Conduct do not go to jail. They are not on parole. They are free to move about, to vote, to own a gun, and so on.

It’s not a civil court – SafeSport does not award monetary compensation to victims.

It is, however, similar in many ways to the HR department of any large corporation. Let’s call the corporation the United States Olympic Committee, and the NGBs are operational divisions within the larger corporation. The athletes and coaches are the ‘employees’ within the operational divisions that make up the corporation.

At any corporation, there are codes of conduct all employees–from the mailroom to the boardroom–must adhere to, or face consequences. A minor infraction will usually result in a warning from the direct manager, and the consequences escalate if the offense is repeated. So if Joe tells an inappropriate joke in the lunchroom, he gets a verbal warning rom his supervisor (who may also involve HR). If he tells another, he gets a written warning from his supervisor and HR and sent to sensitivity training. A third might get him a ‘last chance’ written warning. The fourth time he tells a salty joke he may well find himself pounding the pavement with his resume in his hand.

It doesn’t matter if Joe is THE BEST employee in all other ways. He failed to uphold the code of conduct, so he is out.

At Acme Widgets Corporation, Sam the National Sales Manager comes up behind Jenny, makes a lewd pass at her and smacks her on the bum. Jenny is distraught, and goes immediately to her manager. Now, back in the day, Sam might’ve got a warning, or Jenny might have been told to ‘suck it up buttercup.’

No more.

Today, Jenny is told by her manager to go straight to HR. She tells them what happened. Sam is called in to face HR. He is put on administrative leave ASAP, and since his role is almost entirely commission based, that means he does not earn any money. HR interviews Jenny, Sam, other employees on the team, the managers, a customer who was in the office that day, even the guy who was restocking the vending machines. IT is pulled in to review all of Sam’s email, his browser history, the call and text records on his company phone. All his expenses are audited.

After gathering all this evidence, HR informs Sam that he is terminated with cause. They remind him that he agreed to abide by the code of conduct when he signed his contract. He will not receive a severance package. He will not receive a reference. This means he will struggle to find employment at the same level in a different corporation.

Sam chooses to hire an lawyer and sue for wrongful dismissal (if his jurisdiction makes that worth pursuing). During that case, the lawyers for Acme Widgets Corporation not only present the evidence they used to terminate with cause. They contact every single solitary company Sam has ever worked for to find out what, if any, discipline was on his file there. Lo and behold, this is his second or third time he has behaved in an inapproprite manner by getting ‘handsy’ with female coworkers. In the worst case, he coerced sex from an intern, telling her he’d be sure she got a full time job on his team when she graduated. The other corporations paid him off to leave and swept the incidents under the rug. Only Acme Widgets had the backbone to stand up for the victim. They not only win the court case, they bring ALL of Sam’s past transgressions to light as well.

So now Sam has lost his job and his income. He has incurred legal fees. His name is MUD in the widget industry. No one will hire him. No one will buy from him.

Do you feel sorry for him?

Stop and ask yourself. Think hard. Do you feel sorry for Sam?

Would you take his side if he got on social media and whined all over the place? Screamed about ‘due process’ and ‘guilty until proven innocent’ and ‘constitutional rights’?

Would you, as his friend, start petitions? Solicit funds to create pamphlets? Start a Go Fund Me so you could fly all over the country to talk with the shareholders of Acme Widgets?

Would you rail against Acme Widgets and its HR department online, spreading falsehoods? Take the word of a misinformed copyright lawyer with an agenda over that of an employment lawyer?

Would you continue to support him when other people known to sexually exploit, lie, cheat, and steal join in his fight? Even convicted rapists? Would you?

Because if Acme Widgets is the USOC, USEF is the sales department and SafeSport is the HR department (and those elected representatives the Overhul group wants to speak with are the shareholders), that is precisely what the ISWG and Overhul groups are doing. They are standing with Sam. They are believing the words of a lawyer with no expertise in this area of the law. They are allowing convicted rapists and child molesters to have a voice renouncing a law that was put in place precisely to silence those MOFOs.

Or would you tell Sam he’s darned lucky to not be in jail? To count his lucky f***ing stars, shape up his behavior and find gainful employment in another field?

Jenny represents all the nameless and faceless victims – many, many of them minors – who have fallen to Sam, who represents all those with a lifetime ban from SafeSport. They’ve lost their jobs, not their liberties. They need to shape up their behavior and find gainful employment in another field.

It is NOT the fault of the victims that these individuals have no other employable skills. That is the fault of the so-called professionals who have failed to be professional. They have failed to abide by the code of conduct they agreed to when they became members of USEF. They have been terminated with cause.

We are sad that Sam is not the upstanding guy we thought he was, but we accept the fact that he lost his job. And we’re in various degrees of shock, outrage and disgust that Sam’s friends are actually not just accepting but encouraging convicted criminals in their fight against SafeSport. They aren’t even making cogent suggestions for improving the HR policies and procedures at Acme Widgets. If they were at least doing that, it would be worth listening to; in the meantime, clean house within your advocacy group.

There’s a saying here on COTH that dates back many moons: “When someone shows you who they really are, believe them.”

We see you. We believe you. We aren’t happy.

65 Likes

Personally I didn’t see anything wrong with the “alleged victim”, isn’t that just the verbage they use in court (“alleged victim”, “accused”, “alleged shooter”, etc) until the final judgement is made? Not a law person at all, but I always understood that to just be the term they are required to use. Like, Michael Barisone shot that LK chick, but he is still called “alleged shooter” even though it’s not uncertain that he shot her. It’s not uncertain that the victim is actually a victim.

Also, on the subject of equestrian clothes being “sexy”: I don’t think the little kids stuff is at all, but anyone who says equestrian breeches aren’t sexualized hasn’t seen the tons of teen girls on IG posing in their breeches with their butts stuck out to the camera to make it look big. Like, it can be quite excessive. Disclaimer: it’s totally their right to wear whatever they want and men still need to be held responsible for their actions, the girls aren’t “asking for” anything, etc, etc. The gear IS made to be more athletic. Doesn’t mean some of the younger girls aren’t actively trying to make themselves look sexy in them (I just look like a lumpy potato, I wish I could look like that.)

1 Like